TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

I've downloaded them. You have some beefs, fine. They seem to have been considered, and conclusions reached. But as far as I can tell from my first brief glance at the lengthy documents the main concern is that sometimes the enforcers are a bit rude or impatient, and write occasional letters of a somewhat brusque nature. You are taking political action, and that's fine by me. But don't expect the whole system to change just because you don't like bits of it.

If you want to discuss it, you'll need to read it properly. It's written in "layperson style", so no one should have any major difficulty understanding it.

What you've said so far isn't worth responding to, because you don't seem that interested in the actual issues. There's always an issue with levels of detail in discussions like this, and if we've reached that level where discussion dries up, I'm quite happy with that. I don't really have the time or the inclination to nit-pick over 50-60 issues, anyway.

There are limits beyond which I would not think it morally right to go. Because I value the NHS one of mine would be abusing the NHS system in order to get special privileges or wasting NHS resources just because I can't be bothered to take care how I make use of them. Another would be to cheat my way into getting licence-free TV and thereby undermining the BBC.

Yes and no. The NHS does critical work, and defrauding it in some way would mean that sick people might not get the treatment they need.

I would never advocate defrauding the BBC, not least because that would be breaking the Law. The consequences for the BBC would be serious, too... celebrities might not get the champagne they "need". That would be a tragedy.

In your previous posts you seemed to bundle lawful and unlawful behaviour in this respect. If you've now moved away from that, then we will have achieved something here today.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Yes and no. The NHS does critical work, and defrauding it in some way would mean that sick people might not get the treatment they need.

I would never advocate defrauding the BBC, not least because that would be breaking the Law.

In your previous posts you seemed to bundle lawful and unlawful behaviour in this respect. If you've now moved away from that, then we will have achieved something here today.

I was not really thinking in terms of defrauding, although against that too of course. With NHS, it's things like not bothering to turn up to appointments or to give notice if can't make one, insisting and bullying the doctor for inappropriate medication, and that kind of thing.

Same with BBC, obviously I'm against outright lawbreaking, but also against the mean-spiritedness of people who (claim they) only watch catchup in order to get out of buying a licence. Yes, I know, it's technically legal, but they are still using the service and probably at least listen to the radio live (which isn't illegal probably), but chances are in fact most if not all can't resist actually watching live TV from time to time anyway. It's all so mean spirited and petty minded, all for the sake of a small packet of biscuits a day, or about a third of a pint of beer a week.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

If you want to discuss it, you'll need to read it properly. It's written in "layperson style", so no one should have any major difficulty understanding it.

Can't say I do really. I'm content to go along with the Voice of the Listener & Viewer, who seem to support the general view that some small changes could be made to the collection and enforcement procedures.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Can't say I do really. I'm content to go along with the Voice of the Listener & Viewer, who seem to support the general view that some small changes could be made to the collection and enforcement procedures.

"Can't say you do" what? You can see how uneven it makes this discussion if I have 50-60 formally analysed issues with TVL that have previously been submitted to a Government review and you not only don't, but won't even read mine?

I'm not that familiar with the VLV.

Do they have much experience with the excesses of TVL?

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

I was not really thinking in terms of defrauding, although against that too of course. With NHS, it's things like not bothering to turn up to appointments or to give notice if can't make one, insisting and bullying the doctor for inappropriate medication, and that kind of thing.

Okay. And what would be the equivalent of that kind of waste/abuse of services in the context of the BBC? I'm pretty sure I can watch every episode of Eastenders or none, and it makes no difference to BBC costs.

I wouldn't mind some more episodes of the Javone Prince Show, but I can't say I've pestered the BBC about it.

Same with BBC, obviously I'm against outright lawbreaking, but also against the mean-spiritedness of people who (claim they) only watch catchup in order to get out of buying a licence.

I see you've reverted. You need to decide whether you want your weaselly "(claim they)" or not. They are two quite different scenarios.

... listen to the radio live (which isn't illegal probably)...

You are joking?

... but chances are in fact most if not all can't resist actually watching live TV from time to time anyway.

Not true. I've not watched "live" TV broadcasts unlicensed.

It's all so mean spirited and petty minded, all for the sake of a small packet of biscuits a day, or about a third of a pint of beer a week.

I'm happy you have sufficient funds to keep the BBC in the manner to which it's become accustomed. Unfortunately, there are people who struggle with their bills, including the Licence fee.

For me, though, it's more of a political statement than a financial issue. In a democracy sometimes people vote not just with the ballot box, but also with their wallets.

Unfortunately, although I kind of applaud your notion of a fairer society in which everyone does (what you think is) the right thing, it really isn't like that. In our intrinsically unfair society we should be thankful for the rule of law, and expect that organisations like the BBC play their proper part in respecting it.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

I was not really thinking in terms of defrauding, although against that too of course. With NHS, it's things like not bothering to turn up to appointments or to give notice if can't make one, insisting and bullying the doctor for inappropriate medication, and that kind of thing.

Okay. What would be the equivalent of that kind of waste/abuse of services in the context of the BBC? I can watch every episode of Eastenders or none, and it makes no difference to BBC costs.

Same with BBC, obviously I'm against outright lawbreaking, but also against the mean-spiritedness of people who (claim they) only watch catchup in order to get out of buying a licence.

I see you've reverted. You need to decide whether you want your weaselly "(claim they)" or not. They are two quite different scenarios.

... listen to the radio live (which isn't illegal probably)...

You are joking?

... but chances are in fact most if not all can't resist actually watching live TV from time to time anyway.

Not true. I've not watched "live" TV broadcasts unlicensed.

It's all so mean spirited and petty minded, all for the sake of a small packet of biscuits a day, or about a third of a pint of beer a week.

I'm happy you have sufficient funds to keep the BBC in the manner to which it's become accustomed. Unfortunately, there are people who struggle with their bills, including the Licence fee.

For me, though, it's more of a political statement than a financial issue. In a democracy sometimes people vote not just with the ballot box, but also with their wallets.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

You can see how uneven it makes this discussion if I have 50-60 formally analysed issues with TVL that have previously been submitted to a Government review and you not only don't, but won't even read mine?

As you say. they have been submitted to a government review, so the response you need is from the government. If you are not happy with that response, take it up with them. there's no need to launch a wholesale attack on the BBC just because you think some of the licence collection procedures are not to your liking.

I'm not that familiar with the VLV.

Do they have much experience with the excesses of TVL?

You can check them out for yourself at http://www.vlv.org.uk/

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

I can watch every episode of Eastenders or none, and it makes no difference to BBC costs.

It makes a difference to the BBC receipts; the non-payer is not contributing towards the cost of making the programmes.

I've not watched "live" TV broadcasts unlicensed.

Fine. Then I have no legal objection to you not having a licence. However, it remains morally contentious and in my opinion watching catchup should also require a licence, so I shall continue to actively campaign for that.

Unfortunately, there are people who struggle with their bills, including the Licence fee.

And I am in favour of help being given when appropriate. That would include providing towards licence fee as standard for benefit purposes, to those who need them. I do not want to see anybody excluded from receiving BBC output. Far from it indeed. But it should be done in a straightforward manner, without ducking and diving around the system. It should be available to all, and paid for by all.

One thing I would agree with however would be removing the automatic right of people 75+ to a free licence, and instead perhaps more consideration on the basis of genuine hardship.

For me, though, it's more of a political statement than a financial issue.

I understand that for you it is political. You have the right to politicise whatever you like, no matter how petty minded it may seem to others.

In a democracy sometimes people vote not just with the ballot box, but also with their wallets.

Aha, I see. Not "Power to the people" or anything so principled, for you the slogan is "Power to the wallet". Not my idea of the ideal society, but each to her or his own.

cw18

Zapito wrote: »

It makes a difference to the BBC receipts; the non-payer is not contributing towards the cost of making the programmes.

But I don't see why I should be forced to pay towards the making of programmes I don't watch - either live or on catch-up.

And I am in favour of help being given when appropriate. That would include providing towards licence fee as standard for benefit purposes, to those who need them. I do not want to see anybody excluded from receiving BBC output. Far from it indeed. But it should be done in a straightforward manner, without ducking and diving around the system. It should be available to all, and paid for by all.

But it would no doubt be offered to those on income based benefits only, in line with the current help for medical costs. Those of us who earn just above benefits level and have to pay for medical would no doubt be unable to get any help with this either.

[Deleted User]

GustyGardenGalaxy wrote: »

I'm thinking that she should just ignore this letter and leave it there for whoever buys the house. Or do I need to phone TV Licensing to query this?

I suggest you keep it for posterior.